The Neshaminy Board of School Directors met on June 6, 2000 in the Board Room of the District Offices, Maple Point Middle School.  The following persons were in attendance:

1.   Call to Order

      Mr. Stack called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m.

2.   Pledge of Allegiance

      Mr. Stack requested that those in attendance join in the salute to the flag.

3.   Announcements/Presentation

Dr. Frank announced on June 5 the Neshaminy Middle School Band performed at Pennwood Village, a retirement village.  Their performance was very much appreciated.  She said everyone at Pennwood Village, the community, board and administration, thanks you for having had the opportunity to listen to the band�s excellent performance.  The teachers, Donna and Beth, were wonderful.  The students were well behaved.  The students enjoyed themselves, entertained the residents and were very good.

Ms. Drioli suggested consideration be given to having all of the District�s musical groups visit the senior citizen organizations within the Neshaminy community to help build good relations.  This would allow the senior citizens to realize some of the benefits of their tax dollars 

Motion:  Amend Agenda

Mr. Stack presented the following motion:

I move agenda item 6.g, adoption of budget for 2000-2001, be advanced to follow agenda item 3.a., Neshaminy High School Peer Mediation Presentation, and following the presentation public comment be held.

I further move the Work Session be recessed after public comment to allow the Board to meet in an Executive Session.

Mr. Schoenstadt seconded the motion.  The Board unanimously approved the motion.

      a.  Neshaminy High School Peer Mediation Presentation

Peer mediation information distributed at the meeting.  Dr. Bowman explained as a part of the safe school initiatives, the District has implemented a Peer Mediation Conflict Resolution Program.  Dr. Bowman introduced Mrs. Strokovsky, peer mediation coordinator.  Mrs. Strokovsky explained the program is in place in each of the four middle schools, which each have their own characteristics, and Neshaminy High School.  The excellent program training is provided by the Bucks County Intermediate Unit and Peace Center.  When the mediators from the four middle schools get to the high school, they all work together.

Mr. Gavaghan, tenth grader and Neshaminy Middle School graduate, reviewed the history of the Peer Mediation Conflict Resolution Program.  Today, 10,000 schools and communities use peer mediation.  Mr. Andrew Saltzman, tenth grader and Maple Point Middle School graduate, reviewed the peer mediation process and the role of the mediator.  Miss Gwen Cavin, tenth grader and Neshaminy Middle School graduate, reviewed the importance of the program.  She noted peer mediation provides an effective and safe way to resolve conflict among students.  Peer mediation is a crucial part of making school a peaceful and safe learning environment.  It offers an excellent alternative to fighting.  Mr. Krupa, eleventh grader and Sandburg Middle School graduate, reviewed how peer mediation helps individuals reach resolutions in various situations and emphasized the importance of the program.

The students provided the following responses to questions raised at the meeting:

�         Students can be referred for peer mediation by faculty members or make the request themselves.

�         The peer mediators receive 30 to 60 hours of training.  The Sandburg Middle School peer mediators attend three full school days of training at the Peace Center.  Peer check-up meetings are held during the year.

�         Currently, 40 high school students and 40 middle school students are trained in peer mediation.

�         An adult is always present during mediation.

�         Peer mediation can be applied in every situation.  It helps students with many life skills.  As a result of peer mediation, students become more tolerant of those who are different from themselves.

Mrs. Strokovsky stated peer mediation is an empowering process that allows students to know they are able to solve their own problems.  The process takes a long time to be accepted by all the students, be accepted in the schools and be used.  The program has been in place in the middle schools for four years.  The high school has a number of peer mediation trained students.  Hopefully, the program will be implemented in the elementary schools.

6.   Items for Approval

      g.  Adoption of the Budget for 2000-2001

Itinerant music program, middle school department chairperson and lead teacher information sheets distributed prior to meeting.  Budget cuts information sheet and budget reconciliation sheet distributed at the meeting.  Mr. Paradise presented a Power Point presentation, which included the following information:

Expenditures:

Salary Increases

·         Certified Staff - 2.75 percent salary increase

·         Support Staff - 3.0 percent salary increase

·         Since 80 percent of the budget is comprised of salary and benefits, the salary increases account for a large dollar increase in the expenditures.

Health Insurance

·         The health insurance premium has increased by 15 percent, which is a $1,500,000 increase.  Initially the increase was projected to be 17 percent.

Comprehensive Technical School

·         The budget reflects an increase of $1,646,000.  This is a 110 percent increase over the current contribution rate.  In April the projected increase was $1,900,000.

·         As a result of the change to a comprehensive technical school, some staff reductions have been experienced.

Debt Service Payment

·         There is an increase in the debt service payment.

·         In 1997 the Board refinanced some of the District’s debt, which resulted in a savings of $1,350,000.  The savings was taken over the first three years.  In year four (2000-2001), the debt service payment returns to the pre-refinanced amount.

Special Education

·         $15,192,000 has been budgeted for required special education programs, which is an 11 percent increase.

·         The projected $4,934,016 state subsidy includes a $978,000 increase, which was obtained through the efforts of Senator Tomlinson.

·         The District’s special education deficit is $10,258,000.

Revenue

·         Most of the District’s revenue is local, flat revenue, and there is a mostly flat real estate tax base.

·         The only substantial development taking place in the District is the Flowers Mill Housing Development.  The District has received some revenue from this development, but nothing significant. 

·         There is a $479,000 decrease in the public utility realty taxes from the state.

Value of Mill

·         In the 2000-2001 budget, one mill equals $178,330.

State Subsidies

·         The retirement system subsidy has been decreased $803,000 or 53.9 percent.

Expenditure Impact

·         In April the budget reflected an expenditure increase of 5.1 percent or $5,573,000.

·         If the one-time costs (health insurance premium increase, comprehensive technical school and debt service increase) are excluded, the increase is only 1.38 percent or $1,500,000.

·         As of June 6, the expenditure increase has been reduced from 5.1 percent to 2.2 percent or $2,471,052. 

·         After accounting for the three one-time costs, all other budget allocations have decreased by $1,100,000 or a 1 percent budget decrease.

·         Budget reductions made as of April total $2,200,000.

·         Budget reductions made as of June 6 total $5,017,439.

·         The proposed millage increase has been reduced as follows:

                                                April                                       56.3 mills

                                                May 9                                     39.7 mills

                                                May 23                                   35.9 mills

                                                June 6                                     31.1 mills

Budget Reconciliation

Dr. Bowman reviewed the budget reconciliation sheet distributed at the meeting and highlighted the following:

                      Total Expenditures                  $113,102.786

                      Total Revenues*                      $107,555,474

                      Gap                                        $    5,547,312

                      Value of One Mill                     $       178,330

                      Required Additional Mills                               31.1

                                                Annual increase on Average

  Assessment of $6,600 $    205

Monthly increase $      17

                                                Percentage Increase in

                                                  Expenditure Budget                                        2.2%

                                                *Includes utilization of $4,200,000 of the fund balance

Dr. Bowman reviewed the budget reductions made since May 4 listed on the budget cuts information sheet distributed at the meeting (see information sheet for detailed information).  He stated the proposed budget maintains the integrity of all of the District’s educational, curricular and co-curricular programs.  The seventh major is provided for in the budget the way it has been provided for in the past.

Budget Discussion

In response to Mrs. Butville’s question about the non-mandated items, Dr. Bowman provided the following information:

·         The overtime building maintenance checks will be discussed later in the meeting.

·         The benefits package was discussed in a June 6 committee meeting.

·         Data has been provided to the Board members regarding the instrumental music program.  The instrumental music program is in place the same way it has been in place in the past.

·         Data has been provided to the Board members regarding the lead teacher and department chairperson positions.  The budget does not include any changes to the lead teacher or department chairperson positions.

Dr. Bowman pointed out the budget is at 31.1 mills and the administration will continue to review the budget.  The goal is to reduce the budget below 30 mills without impacting educational, curricular or co-curricular programs for students.

In response to Mrs. Butville’s question about the fund balance, Mr. Paradise explained presently the estimated fund balance is $5,600,000 and $4,200,000 of the fund balance will be used to balance the budget.  Dr. Bowman stated the fund balance may be higher by the end of June.

Ms. Drioli inquired if the budget includes revenue that will be generated by the Flowers Mill Housing Development.  Mr. Paradise explained $380,000 in real estate taxes have been added to the budget.  In addition to this, $850,000 in interim real estate taxes have been budgeted.  Most of which will come from the Flowers Mill Housing Development.  These two factors have resulted in the value of a mill increasing from $177,365 to $178,330.

In response to Mr. Eccles’ questions about further budget reductions, Dr. Bowman explained his goal is to reduce the budget by 1.1 mill, which is equivalent to over $200,000.  Every budget line item will be reviewed further for possible reductions.  All programs will remain in place and be able to function very effectively.  Areas that will be reviewed for further reductions include the following:

·         Travel

·         Consumable materials

·         Monies allocated for workshops

·         Any account that has flexibility

Dr. Bowman stated his measurement will be, can the District maintain the same quality the District had this past year and previous years.  Next year the District will have to do with what it had this year and maybe a little less.

Authority Update

Authority letter/listing distributed at the meeting.  Dr. Bowman advised the Board that at Mr. Stack’s request, the Authority’s solicitor, Mr. Marte, was contacted regarding the projects completed and funded by the Authority to date.  Mr. Marte has submitted a listing of projects undertaken and completed by the Authority on behalf of the School District (see listing included in letter distributed at the meeting).  Dr. Bowman briefly reviewed the listing.  He noted from 1996 to 1999 the Authority has expended $2,182,244.  The projects scheduled for completion in the year 2000 total $741,032.  The year 2000 projects, which have been bid and purchase orders issued, included the following:

·         Architectural and engineering services for Carl Sandburg Middle School kitchen renovations - $35,000

·         Carl Sandburg Middle School kitchen renovations including electrical work, HVAC, plumbing and purchase of restaurant equipment - $426,794

·         Removal and replacement of boiler and aboveground storage tank at Herbert Hoover Elementary School - $279,238

Dr. Bowman explained after the Authority pays for the year 2000 projects, the balance of funds in the Authority for 2001 projects will be approximately $867,009.  Eight items are being considered for the 2000-2001 budget year, but no action has been taken.  Since 1996 the Authority has been funding large projects for the District, which is one of the reasons why there are no large projects included in the current general fund budget.  The Authority will probably be able to fund projects for two more years. 

Mr. Stack noted the replacement of the Transportation Department roof at a cost of $265,000 is included in the budget.  He inquired if this is a project that could be funded by the Authority.  Mr. Paradise explained the Authority would want to bid the project themselves, and not reimburse the District for the project.  The project has already been bid in Neshaminy’s name.  Legally, for the Authority to pay for the project, the bid would have to be put out in the Authority’s name.  Due to the condition of the roof, the District had to deal with the situation right away.  Also, the Authority was not willing to accept another project last year.

Mr. Fleck advised the Board that the Authority is a separate entity.  The Authority acts for the benefit of the Neshaminy School District, but is still a separate legal entity.  Mr. Paradise indicated he will discuss with the Authority the issue of reimbursing the District for the roofing project.

In response to Mrs. Butville’s question about storage tanks, Mr. Paradise explained some of the District’s storage tanks are still located underground.  As long as the tanks are located underground, a lot of testing is required and the District complies with the testing requirements.  Mr. Paradise advised the Board he will update the underground storage tank report and distribute it to the Board members.

Ms. Drioli noted the Authority has financed a lot of the underground storage tank projects.  She requested before the Authority’s funds are depleted, the Authority finance the underground storage tank projects at the Poquessing and Lower Southampton schools.  She pointed out this would be consistent with what the Authority has been doing at the District’s other schools.  Mr. Paradise explained the Authority project listing is not in priority order.  Roofing is the only precedent item on the list.  Mr. Stack stated it is not in the best interest of the District to deplete all of the Authority’s funds.  By retaining some monies in the Authority account, funds can be generated for future projects. 

Non-mandated Items

Information previously distributed. 

Instrumental Lessons

Mr. Stack referred to item no. 20, instrumental lessons, and noted additional information was provided on this issue.  He recommended no action be taken on this program at this time.  There was Board consensus to not make any changes or take any action on the instrumental lessons program.

Lead Teachers

Dr. Bowman explained eight years ago the District had four full-time, twelve month administrators (supervisors) in charge of curriculum.  There was an administrator/supervisor for each of the following areas:  Science and Math, Social Studies and Humanities, English and Language Arts, and Arts and Music.  The salaries of the administrators/supervisors today would be comparable to what principals are currently paid.  Eight years ago, the lead teacher program was established in the belief that teachers can be leaders of teachers.  Under the lead teacher program, each curriculum area has a lead teacher.  The lead teacher teaches half a day and provides curriculum leadership the other half of the day.  In the central office there is a lead teacher for Health and Physical Education, Art, Music, Language Arts, Social Studies, Science and Math.  There are other lead teachers in the District who do not receive release time.  As a result of their work in the District, they are paid a stipend. By restructuring the program to include lead teachers, the cost of the program was reduced by 50 percent.

Dr. Bowman stated the District’s business is teaching and learning.  Everything that takes place in the District is somehow impacted in the area of teaching and learning.  Currently, the lead teacher program is under the supervision of Ms. Haggerty.  The lead teachers have the responsibility to deal with what do we teach, how do we teach it and how well do we know the students are learning. 

Dr. Bowman referred to the Curriculum and Instruction Department packet distributed to the Board members, and noted it provides examples of what the lead teachers have accomplished to date and the challenges facing the District.  He referred to the test data and said Neshaminy is a very respected school district for its test scores.  The students performed extremely well on the Pennsylvania State Assessment Test.  He pointed out a lot of work goes into aligning what is done in the curriculum and what is tested.  Lead teachers help teachers understand the content, methods and quality needed so students can perform well.  He noted the Blue Ribbon School application included a tremendous amount of curriculum work.  The lead teachers and Curriculum Department spent a lot of time working on the process.

Dr. Bowman referred to the area of academic standards and explained all of the secondary programs (grades 6 through 12) have been developed around the template for academic standards in Pennsylvania.  Examples of this are included in the Curriculum and Instruction Department packet.  The information sheets list the national, state and Neshaminy standards.  This was accomplished by the lead teachers under the direction of Ms. Haggerty.  The lead teachers have developed an assessment for every course in the District.  The students’ diplomas include seals of proficiency for the Language Arts and Math areas.  He reviewed the information included in the packet and explained the work would not have been accomplished without the lead teacher program. 

Dr. Bowman advised the Board that the District’s Strategic Plan is due in Harrisburg by the end of September.  A request has been submitted for a three month extension.  Most of the strategic planning process will involve instruction, curriculum and assessment. 

Dr. Bowman explained a new law called Act 48 was recently passed.  Under the new law, staff members, over a five year period, must take a certain number of inservice training hours to maintain their license to teach.  The District is responsible for providing the training.  The lead teachers and Curriculum Department develop the professional development days.  The lead teachers are teachers of teachers.  The District provides the lead teachers with the resources and time to get the job done.  The lead teachers have a lot of responsibilities and do a lot of extra things.  The lead teachers model the integration of technology in the classrooms.  He said as the Superintendent of the School District, he cannot image the School District without individuals who are responsible and accountable for what we teach, how we teach it and how we know children are learning. 

In response to Mrs. Bostwick’s question about grants, Dr. Bowman explained depending upon what is happening and where the money is available, the appropriate lead teacher or a team of lead teachers might be involved in the grant process. Every grant application involves a lead teacher if it has to do with what we are teaching, how we are teaching and how we assess.  Today, a technology grant is not granted unless it is tied into what is happening in the classroom in the content area.  Grant applications involve a team approach. The District has received over $1,500,000 in grant funds this year.  Over half of the grant funds are entitlements and the other funds are in competitive grants.

Ms. Drioli inquired why the District is responsible for providing the inservice training required under Act 48.  Dr. Bowman explained it is the teachers’ responsibility to make sure they take the courses and meet the hours requirement over a five year period.  The District is required by law to put together an Act 48 Plan. 

Ms. Drioli inquired why the Intermediate Unit cannot provide the required training programs.  Dr. Bowman stated the School District is required under the Strategic Plan to have an Act 48 Plan.  The Intermediate Unit does not have the time to provide programs that deal with direct curriculum development and working with teachers to improve their program, aligning their program, review of test scores, instruction improvement and changes in curriculum.  The lead teachers go into the buildings during the day and work directly with the teachers.  The lead teachers also work with new teachers, and they are responsible for a mentoring program.  The one most critical thing that can be done to improve the quality of education is staff development.  This is the one factor that makes a tremendous difference in children’s learning.  The District uses the Intermediate Unit as a resource. 

Ms. Haggerty pointed out that every Intermediate Unit Program costs the District money.  Often the cost for one day is $100 per person.  When programs are provided in the District, individuals who are already employed by the District teach the program.  There is a cost for the substitute, but no matter who presents the program there would still be a substitute cost. 

Mr. Eccles noted the budget process started out with a projected 56 mill increase, the projected increase is now down to 31.1 mills and it is anticipated it will be reduced to under 30 mills.  This is almost a 50 percent reduction.  He noted the $21,000 mileage/workshops account reduction, $21,600 reduction of staff inservice, professional development fees, etc. and $23,070 mileage reduction, which totals approximately $65,000.  Dr. Bowman explained the $65,000 is not just mileage reductions.  The accounting code is mileage/workshops.  Mr. Eccles felt if $65,000 in reductions can be found for mileage and workshops, the Board should not even be discussing reductions that involve programs, lead teachers and department chairpersons.  He felt there is more than 10 percent left in the budget that can be reduced.  None of the budget changes should interfere with the quality of the education of the students.  The Board and administration should be striving to improve the qualify of education in the District.

Mr. Stack explained the issue of lead teacher positions was being discussed because the Board had identified the positions as one of the non-mandated items.  Dr. Bowman explained the $65,000 reduction is not mileage.  It is workshop costs. The state accounting code, which the District must adhere to, calls the 580 account mileage/workshops.  Expenditures for both mileage and workshops are included in the 580 account.  Due to all the standards, there were a tremendous number of workshops included in the budget.  All of the requests were reviewed and reduced back to this year’s level. The administration starts working on the budget in November.  Prior to providing the Board with the budget in April, the administration makes some budget reductions.  The budget provided in April is a working draft, a beginning point.  The budget process is a process that takes time.  As time progresses, more information becomes available and changes are made to the budget.  Eighteen positions were removed from the budget this past week.  Prior to making the position reductions, there had to be a review of scheduling, placement of students, affect of the comprehensive technical school, etc.  The administration and Board is now approaching the end of the process.  Dr. Bowman stated he will review further budget line items and make some difficult decisions.  He noted the budget includes over 4,500 line items and totals over $100,000,000.  It is a three month process, which is now reaching its end.  He said the administration has made a lot of reductions in the budget and feels comfortable with the budget. 

There was no Board support to make any changes in the lead teacher positions.

Department Chairperson

Mr. Stack noted the Board had requested additional information on the department chairperson positions.  Dr. Bowman explained the Board had been provided with further information on the department chairperson positions.  The department chairpersons are the link between the principal and classroom teachers.  He noted the department chairpersons do not receive any release time.  They do receive a stipend for their additional work. 

Mr. Stack stated due to the way it is offered and administered, the Middle School Program is an expensive program.  It, also, has provided a lot of very positive results.  Several years ago the middle school program was examined and some possible changes were discussed.  The Board did not follow through with it to find additional economies.  He said he did not realize there were department chairpersons at the middle school level until recently.  Therefore, he does not appreciate fully the work effort and how it could possibly be assumed elsewhere within the school in some other form.  He stated he would support doing something differently with the department chairperson position in the middle schools.  The cost of department chairpersons across the District is approximately $70,000.  None of the other Board members indicated they supported making any changes in the department chairperson positions.

Dr. Bowman explained in the middle schools there is a principal and assistant principal.  Dealing with middle school students, grades 6 through 9, is a challenge.  He said he worries about people burning out due to dealing with what must be done on a day-to-day basis.  The department chairperson is the link between the classroom teachers and administration in regard to materials, supplies, textbooks, inventories, technology, etc.  The department chairperson position is probably one of the best buys for the dollar.  Dr. Frank stated educationally it is sound to provide department chairpersons in the middle schools, because that is the most vulnerable population (grades 6 through 9).  It is the structure required in the middle schools.

Dr. Bowman explained middle schools are structured one of two ways.  Either there are department chairpersons or paid team leaders.  Team leaders receive release time and are paid a stipend.  The team leader structure was not put in place, because it is too expensive.  It might have been a good model, but it was too expensive.  The District took the streamline approach and kept a model that worked, because it also had to provide for the ninth grade students located in the middle schools.  A check of area school districts revealed that all the school districts have either department chairpersons or team leaders in the middle schools.  If the middle schools do not have either department chairpersons or team leaders, many things will not get done.

Dr. Bowman stated some of the indirect things in education (i.e. lead teachers and department chairpersons) do not seem to have a profound impact, but over time they make a big difference.  Over time the quality will erode because the services are no longer available.  He said every time there has been an opening in the District, he has reviewed how to restructure and save money.  He said when you reach a certain core, you need to provide what we are deserving of in the Neshaminy School District.  There are core requirements needed to run a school district and provide the children with the opportunities they deserve. 

Mr. Schoenstadt said he does not see any rationale for making a change to the current program.  After the Board has had an opportunity to complete the five year strategic planning process, evaluate the District’s future direction and determine if any changes should be made as a result of the process, it will be logical and rationale to make changes at that time.  He felt to arbitrarily change something now, without going through the process, is premature.

Mrs. Butville inquired how much of an overlap there is between the lead teacher positions and department chairperson positions.  Dr. Bowman explained the lead teachers have grades K through 12 responsibilities.  They are the specialists.  The department chairpersons deal with the mechanics and day-to-day things in the schools and work a little with the lead teachers.  There is very little overlap.

Non-essential Maintenance

Dr. Bowman advised the Board a list of items has been developed, which will be used to make decisions within the next week.

Incentive to Opt Out of Dual Benefit Package

Will be discussed by the Board.

Eliminate Overtime Custodial Checks of Buildings

Mr. Paradise explained the issue has been discussed internally.  It was felt not having any building checks over the weekends would leave the District vulnerable.  If any change is made, it is recommended it be changed from a Saturday and Sunday check to just a Sunday check.  It was felt Sunday would be the better of the two days to have the building checks conducted.  The change will result in a cost reduction of approximately 50 percent.

Ms. Drioli inquired if schools could be included as a part of local town watch groups.  Mr. Paradise explained the custodians actually go into the buildings and make sure the heat is on, there are no boiler problems, etc.  Mr. Paradise said local police departments are asked to patrol the outside of the school buildings. 

Mr. Eccles advised the Board by changing the start time of an Aquatics Program custodian shift from 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m., a savings of approximately $7,000 to $10,000 will be realized.  He inquired if such a change could be made in the custodial building checks time schedule.  Mr. Paradise stated the contract states the employees will receive overtime for the building checks.  The contract does not provide that the building checks must be conducted both days.  Normally, there is no custodial service on Saturday or Sundays.  Mrs. Butville suggested when the contract is renegotiated, the contract include scheduling an employee to work regularly on Saturdays and/or Sundays and overtime not be paid for the weekend building checks. 

There was Board consensus to reduce the custodial checks of buildings to just Sundays.

4.   Public Comment

There was a two minute time limit per speaker and the public comment session was limited to 30 minutes.  Mr. Stack stated there has been no action taken against any Neshaminy educational or co-curricular programs.  Everything will remain intact as is.

Mr. Piscitelli, on behalf of Representative Wright, read a letter from Representative Wright complimenting the School District for offering one of the most generous property tax rebate programs for senior citizens within the state.  The letter outlined the Commonwealth’s recent adjustments to it’s Property Tax and Rent Rebate Program and urged the Board to make adjustments in its program to closely match the Commonwealth’s adjusted program. (See attachment I for copy of letter.)

Mr. Piscitelli, Middletown Township, recommended the District use the same income criteria as the state to calculate the income requirement for the senior citizen tax rebate program.  The state excludes 50 percent of an individual’s social security retirement benefits.  He said it is his understanding that the change will result in additional rebates totaling $40,000 or three tenths of one mill.  He suggested the District offset the cost of the additional rebates by entering into a beverage agreement as a number of area school districts have done.  The profits from the beverage agreement would more than offset the additional cost.

Mr. Knowles, NFT President, referred to the rally of support for the itinerant music program at the May Public Meeting and explained how proud he was of those who supported the program.  He expressed concern about the lead teacher and department chairperson positions, because there is not the same type of community support for these positions as there was for the itinerant music program positions.  Mr. Knowles related how the department chairpersons work closely with staff to help teachers do the best job possible.  He stated being a department chairperson is not an easy job.  He said the Neshaminy Middle School was named a Blue Ribbon School and a good part of that was due to the work of the department chairpersons.  The District cannot get from point “A” to point “B” without some assistance along the way.  Everyone pulls their weight.  The department chairpersons in the middle schools are an essential piece of the middle school structure.  If the middle school department chairperson positions were eliminated, the middle school would have to have team leaders, which would be more expensive than the department chairperson structure.  There are more teams than there are department chairpersons.  The cost of a department chairperson is $2,500.  The department chairperson has no release time, works additional days and takes on responsibilities that far outweigh the amount they are paid.

Mr. Marucci, Langhorne, noted the Commonwealth will be sending a $100 tax rebate check to residents this year.  He challenged the Board to find a way to allow the Neshaminy residents to endorse their rebate checks over to the District’s fund balance.  He challenged the Neshaminy residents to endorse their rebate checks over to the School District.  He noted this is a unique one-time opportunity for residents to help the School District.  He pointed out the amount of property taxes each homeowner pays to the School District does not even cover the cost of educating one child, which is approximately $9,000.  He felt it was unfair and irresponsible for homeowners to complain about their property taxes when they are not even paying the full cost of educating one child.  He said the School Board keeps property values boosted in the District.  Mr. Marucci pledged his $100 state tax rebate check to the District.

Mr. O’Connor, Langhorne, stated no one wants an increase in taxes.  He said the Board has managed to meet the state mandates, open a comprehensive technical school and preserve the programs and teacher positions that everyone values.  This was all done for the average cost of four Nintendo games.  He thanked the Board for their management of the budget and providing the education for the students.

Ms. Zimmerman, Styer Orchards, said it is her understanding that the Middletown Township Country Club does not pay school taxes.  She recommended to bring additional revenue into the District, the Country Club be taxed.  She explained prior to Middletown Township owning Styer Orchards, the Styer family paid taxes on all of the property.  Now that Middletown Township owns Styer Orchards, taxes are only paid on seven acres of the property.

Mr. Pacheco, Middletown Township, thanked the Board for providing a quality education for the students at a nominal price.  He stated if he receives a tax rebate check from the Commonwealth, he would be happy to endorse it over to the District.  He said he appreciates the Board holding the line on the music program and retaining the music teachers.  He suggested the School District work with other school districts to increase its purchasing power. 

Ms. Burke, Ferderbar Elementary School parent, requested the Board budget four rather than three fifth grade teachers at the Ferderbar Elementary School for the 2000-2001 school year.  She stated in previous years there have been four classes. She indicated she was opposed to the practice of placing students in sister schools.  She explained 10 percent of the Home and School Association’s funds are allocated for the fifth graders. 

Mr. Ruger, Levittown, requested the hockey team be recognized as a club so the scores and schedules could be announced and the team could receive recognition in the yearbook.  He stated he is not requesting the Board provide any funding. 

In order to allow the Board to meet in an Executive Session to discuss a personnel issue, Mr. Stack recessed the meeting at 9:45 p.m.  Mr. Stack reconvened the meeting at 10:25 p.m.

Mrs. Bostwick and Dr. Frank left the meeting at 10:25 p.m.

Ms. Drioli referred to comments made earlier in the meeting under public comment, and commended the residents for volunteering to endorse their tax rebate from the state over to the District.

5.   Items for Discussion

      a.  District Priorities

Information distributed prior to meeting.  Issue discussed earlier in the meeting under item no. 6.a. - adoption of the budget for 2000-2001.

      b.  June 8, 2000, 1:00 p.m. Meeting with Senator Tomlinson Regarding Sesame Place

Dr. Bowman advised the Board that Senator Tomlinson had contacted him about a meeting with representatives from the District and Sesame Place to discuss the amusement tax issue, which the District has been dialoguing about for the last 18 months.  Senator Tomlinson has been asked to conduct such a meeting to determine if any discussion could take place that might move the issue along.  No decisions will be made at the meeting.  Dr. Bowman indicated both he and Mr. Paradise will be attending the meeting.  Mr. Schoenstadt indicated he would attend the meeting. 

      c.  New Fee Schedule

Information distributed prior to the meeting.

NESACC

Mr. Eccles advised the Board that NESACC has agreed to pay a rental fee of $11,160 ($10 per space, six spaces per day for 186 school days) for the use of District facilities for the 2000-2001 school year.  The District will enter into a one year agreement with NESACC.  The rental fee issue will be reviewed again next year.

There was Board consensus to proceed with the NESACC agreement and include the rental fee in the agreement.  Mr. Mecleary abstained from the issue, because his daughter is employed by NESACC.

Aquatics Program

Mr. Eccles advised the Board the new price structure for the Aquatics Program will be divided into two sections, senior citizens and adults.  Initially, the schedule called for charging all adults a $4.00 per session fee, which was a 60 percent increase.  The price structure has been revised to include a senior citizens (62 years old and older) fee of $2.50 per session.  See information distributed for complete fee listing. 

Mr. Eccles explained by changing the custodial hours, a savings of $7,000 to $10,000 will be realized.  The custodial cost savings will offset the reduction in the fee for senior citizens. 

There was Board consensus for the new Aquatics Program fee schedule.

      d.  Channel One Network Poquessing Pilot

Information distributed prior to meeting.  Dr. Bowman advised the Board that Mr. Stanford, Poquessing Middle School principal, has been reviewing the Channel One Network for the Poquessing Middle School.  The Channel One Network will wire the school and put 27-inch televisions in every classroom.  The District will be able to use the network to telecast in the building.  In return for this, Channel One will be played during the homeroom period and not during class instructional time.  The broadcast will include news and two minutes of advertising.  Dr. Bowman proposed the Channel One Network be installed at the Poquessing Middle School as a pilot program.  The only cost to the District would involve making sure all the necessary electrical power is available to plug in all of the television sets.  The program would be reviewed to see how it fits, how the staff handles its and determine the impact of the advertising.  After the pilot program is completed, a recommendation will be presented to the Board as to whether to retain the program, expand it, etc. 

Mr. Stack inquired if it would be used to enhance or supplement the District’s curriculum.  Mr. Paradise explained the Channel One Network information could be utilized to supplement programs by using a video to PC converter, which costs approximately $100.  Dr. Bowman explained that the Channel One Network will provide a complete video library.  He stated he is reluctant to use the video library until he knows it is in line with the District’s curriculum.  The school will have the option of broadcasting the District’s own videos throughout the school.  Dr. Bowman stated it will be a good pilot program, because it will provide the opportunity to explore what having cable throughout an entire building can do in the educational realm, communication with students, etc.  He explained he wants to pilot the program and carefully evaluate the advertising component of the program.

In response to Board members’ questions about the wiring for the program, Dr. Bowman explained the wiring will be done in August and the program will be available for use in September.  If upon completion of the pilot program the decision is made to discontinue the program, Channel One Network will remove the television sets.  Channel One Network will make the decision as to whether they want to remove the cabling. 

Mrs. Butville explained she is familiar with the program and the information broadcast is current events.  Dr. Bowman explained there is only a limited amount of time in the classroom for students.  If the Channel One Network is going to be turned on during a regular classroom period, it needs to be used as a part of the curriculum and not just as a nice add-on.  It will be extremely useful if there is a world event taking place, because it can be brought right into the classrooms. 

There was Board consensus to pilot the Channel One Network in the Poquessing Middle School.  A report on the program will be presented to the Board in the spring.  Messrs. Wyatt and Stanford will develop the framework of the questions that should be asked to do an assessment of the program. 

6.   Items for Approval (cont.)

      a.  Overnight Trips

           i)  Junior Class Trip - Williamsburg, VA, April 28, 29 and 30, 2001

Information previously distributed self- explanatory.

          ii)  Neshaminy High School Concert Choir Trip - Italy, April 16-23, 2001

Dr. Bowman advised the Board that Mr. Nelson has discussed the possibility of a concert choir trip to Italy.  He noted in the past District students have performed in Germany.  At one time, the trips to Europe were stopped because of world tensions at that time.  Because this was done, trips outside of the United States have not been investigated in recent years.  However, it is not a Board Policy.  It is not known at this time if the students would be staying in a hotel or with area families. 

There was Board consensus for the Williamsburg, Virginia junior class trip.  There was Board consensus to investigate further the issue of a concert choir trip to Italy.

      b.  Tax and Revenue Anticipation Note

Information distributed prior to meeting.  Mr. Paradise explained under the Local Government Unit Debt Act, the School District is permitted to borrow an amount of money that is equal to its projected cumulative cash flow deficit.  The District has projected a cash flow deficit, which is based on a worst case scenario.  Therefore, the District can borrow up to a maximum of $5,000,000.  The District will borrow the funds at a low interest rate and invest the funds at a higher rate.  The funds will be borrowed and reinvested the same day.  As a result of the tax and revenue anticipation note, it is estimated the District will net approximately $100,000.  It is a positive venture for the School District.  It has already been included in the budget. 

There was Board consensus for the tax and revenue anticipation note.  The tax and revenue anticipation note will be an agenda item at the June Public Meeting.

      c.  Approval of Year End Budget Transfers

Mr. Paradise advised the Board in order to comply with the Auditor General’s requirements, the year end budget transfers will be presented for approval at the June Public Meeting.  The year end budget transfers will be an agenda item at the June Public Meeting.

      d.  Approval of Budgetary Increase for Federal and Other Programs for 1999-2000

Mr. Paradise explained the current budget will be increased to reflect all of the federal and other grants received by the District during the course of the last year.  Approval of the budgetary increase for federal and other programs will be an agenda item at the June Public Meeting.

      e.  Approval of Bids

Mr. Paradise explained bid no. 01-11 and 01-12 are new bids.  In an effort to control costs, items that are normally purchased on a week to week basis or as needed are being bid.  Mr. Paradise reviewed the following two bids:

Bid No. 01-11 - Electrical Supplies

Award Amount:  $18,699.80

The bid is for various supplies for electrical maintenance for use District wide.  Normally, the cost of the items included on the bid would total approximately $30,000.  By bidding the items, the cost is only $18,699.80. 

Bid No. 01-12 - Plumbing Supplies

Award Amount:  $13,963.07

The bid is for various plumbing supplies for use District wide.

Mr. Paradise advised the Board three other bids will be presented for approval at the June Public Meeting:  fuel oil, diesel oil and climbing walls bids.  The bid for the climbing walls are for the Everett, Hoover, Schweitzer and Sandburg Schools.  Federal grant funds will be used to pay for the climbing walls.  Therefore, there will be no cost to the District.  The grant funds must be spent by the end of June.

The bids will be an agenda item at the June Public Meeting.

      f.   Middle School Software Lease

Dr. Bowman informed the Board that the middle school computer labs’ software is over 12 years old.  Dr. Bowman recommended the Board approve a four/five year lease with Josten Software for new software in the middle school computer labs for September.  The new software is aligned to national and state standards.   If the software becomes obsolete, the District can opt out of the lease in year three or four, install new software and receive a credit.  Even though some of the PTA organizations have bought some software for the schools, there will not be a duplication of software.  The cost will be $37,000 per year.  This expenditure is included in the budget.  

There was Board consensus to enter into the software lease.

      g.  Adoption of the Budget for 2000-2001

           Adoption of budget discussed earlier in the meeting.  See pages 2 through 10 of the minutes.

7.   Items for Information

      a.  Langhorne Borough Letter - Earned Income Tax Ordinance

Letter regarding earned income tax ordinance being considered by Langhorne Borough Council distributed to the Board.

      b.  Blue Ribbon Award Breakfast

Board members are invited to attend the June 14 Blue Ribbon Award breakfast. Invitation distributed prior to the meeting.  Board members are to advise Debby Spadaccino if they are attending the breakfast.

8.   Superintendent’s Report

Dr. Bowman reported the following:

Neshaminy High School Graduation - Graduation will be held on Wednesday, June 7.  Board members are to meet in the principal’s office at 6:30 p.m. 

Vocational-Technical School Final Assembly - The Vocational Technical School final assembly will be held on Monday, June 12, at the Conwell Egan High School.  All Board members are invited to attend the final assembly.  It will be the last assembly for Neshaminy students attending the Vocational Technical School on a shared time basis. 

Mrs. Butville inquired if any Neshaminy programs have applied to present at the National School Boards Association convention next year in California.  Dr. Bowman advised the Board the Neshaminy Middle School’s Caring Kids Program and Neshaminy High School’s PASS Program are submitting applications.  Dr. Bowman announced the Caring Kids Program has been accepted for the state PSBA/PASA conference program for education excellence.

9.   Committee Reports

      a.  Certified Meet and Discuss Committee

Mr. Schoenstadt reported there has been no resolution in regard to the issue of an incentive to staff to opt out of the dual benefit package.

      b.  Educational Development Committee

Mr. Mecleary reported the committee discussed Act 48, which pertains to requirements for continued certification of teachers, and what the District’s requirements will be.  The committee also discussed the new pilot reading program, which will go into effect in September 2000 for grades K through 6.  Teachers will be experimenting with two different programs.  A potential cost report will be presented to the committee in January.  A final decision on the reading program will be reached in May.

      c.  Educational Foundation

           No report presented.

      d.  Finance Committee

           Information reviewed earlier in meeting under 4.c. - new fee schedule. 

      e.  Intermediate Unit Board

           No report presented.

      f.  Intermediate Unit Legislative Committee

          No report presented.

      g.  Technical School Board

           Information provided under Superintendent’s Report (item no. 8).

      h.  Board Policies Committee

Ms. Drioli stated the committee recommends the Board adopt policy 552 (PSBA model) with a few revisions as the District’s attendance policy.  The recommended changes are as follows:

·         Page 1 - Line 14:  Remove the word “teacher”

·         Page 2 - Line 14:  Substitute the word “consider” for the word “recognize”

·         Page 3 - Line 28:  Change phrase “The Superintendent shall develop” to “It shall be the responsibility of the Superintendent to develop”.

Ms. Drioli pointed out the policy defines what attendance is and illegal actions.  The Superintendent and/or his designees will develop the guidelines, which will include what will occur if the students do not comply with the policy. 

Mr. Stack expressed concern that the Board is being asked to approve a policy without understanding exactly how the policy will be administered.  He stated he would like to have some idea how the policy will be put in place and administered.  How will it be put into effect? 

Mr. Schoenstadt said it seemed that the intent was to create a policy, charge the Superintendent and his staff with the responsibility to develop the guidelines to work the policy and then present that to the Board for review and approval.  At that point, the administration would be responsible for implementing the policy.  Ms. Drioli stated the policy defines attendance and what is a reasonable excuse for absence.  She said she believed the high school, middle schools and elementary schools should have different criteria.  An elementary school student situation cannot be handled in the same manner as a high school student situation.  She noted each child and situation is different.  She indicated she felt comfortable with allowing the Superintendent and his staff to develop the guidelines.  Mrs. Butville pointed out there are some legal conditions (i.e. cannot reduce grade due to poor attendance) which must be adhered to by the District.

Mr. Stack stated it is his understanding that once developed the guidelines will be reviewed with the Board members.  He questioned why the Board members cannot review both the policy and guidelines before approving the policy.  Ms. Drioli stated how can the administration develop the guidelines without the policy? 

Dr. Bowman recommended the policy be approved and the administration develop the guidelines after the policy is approved.  After the guidelines are developed, they be presented to the Board for review.  He indicated he was not opposed to the Board approving the guidelines.  He noted the administration has to enforce the guidelines.  He stated he supports having the policy approved so the administration can move to the next level. 

In response to Mrs. Butville’s question about the guidelines being in place by September, Dr. Bowman stated the administration could start working on the guidelines and possibly have them in place for September.  Mr. Mecleary recommended there be a motion that the policy not take effect until the guidelines are in place.

Dr. Bowman stated the guidelines will be reviewed with the Board in August and will not be implemented unless they are reviewed by the Board.  Dr. Bowman stated he does not believe the Board has to legally approve the guidelines.  Mrs. Butville noted the guideline should be included in the Student Handbook, which is printed in August. 

Mr. Wyatt stated the policy is intended to be the framework (i.e. Constitution) by which guidelines would then be developed.  The policy is not intended to be the micromanagement of the guidelines.  The policy provides the direction to develop the guidelines.  There is not a set of guidelines waiting in the wings to be developed.  It is felt the policy needs to be in place in order to take the next step, which is to develop guidelines.  Buildings have been working with guidelines for years.  The District does not have a policy to say this is what the guidelines are developed from. 

Mr. Stack stated he is interested in knowing how the guidelines will be enforced, what actions will be taken or not taken.  He indicated he was concerned about approving the policy, because he does not know the ramifications of violations of the policy.  Ms. Drioli stated the policy needs to be in place before the guidelines can be developed.

There was not Board consensus for approval of the policy. After further discussion, it was determined approval of the policy will be deferred until the guidelines are available for Board review.  The Board members indicated they are comfortable with the wording in the policy.

10.  Future Topics

       No future topics were discussed.

11. Agenda Development for the June 20, 2000 Public Meeting

Dr. Bowman reviewed the agenda items for the June 20 Public Meeting.

12. Correspondence

      No correspondence was presented.

13. Other Board Business

       No other board business was discussed.

Mr. Dengler moved the Work Session be adjourned and Mr. Eccles seconded the motion.  The Board approved the motion with seven ayes.  Mr. Stack adjourned the meeting at 11:10 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Carol A. Calvello
Board Secretary